Professional Discipline, Grounds for Sanction, and Disciplinary Procedure
What this domain tests
This domain tests what conduct exposes a Mississippi optometrist to discipline and how the Board's complaint, hearing, and sanction process works.
Core rules and grounds
- Grounds include fraud in obtaining a license, unprofessional conduct, practicing beyond scope, impairment, CE noncompliance, advertising violations, fee splitting, felony conviction, and failure to cooperate with the Board.
- The Board may reprimand, fine, restrict, suspend, revoke, or place a licensee on probation, and may require remediation or CE.
- Procedure generally follows complaint, investigation, notice of charges, hearing, findings, and sanction. The licensee has notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Board orders are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act; the standard is deferential to the Board's findings.
- Criminal conviction does not automatically require revocation, but it can support discipline if related to fitness to practice.
Worked example
An optometrist signs a renewal attestation saying 12 CE hours were completed, but two courses were not Board-approved. Reasoning: the false attestation is itself a disciplinary ground, separate from the CE deficiency. The Board may sanction for both the deficient hours and the misrepresentation. The optometrist should correct the record before the audit.
Traps
Assuming a conviction is automatically a license revocation; ignoring a Board subpoena; treating a settlement as without precedent; failing to report a change of address or adverse action in another state.
Key points
- Discipline requires a statutory ground and due process.
- Sanctions range from reprimand to revocation.
- False CE attestation is independently sanctionable.
- Board orders are appealed under the APA.
- Cooperation with the Board is mandatory.